Re: Planet X: MAY Coordinates [OT]

OK, David, apply your argument to Planet X (size, light reflection,
equipment limitations, etc.) and it’s pie in your face!  This is all OK
for the Mar’s probe, but not Planet X?  Substitute Planet X for the
Mar’s probe in David’s defense, and he’s made my argument.  I’ve done
this, below.

And re your statements that an object smaller than Pluto is not being
able to be “diffuse”, this is also a silly argument. Diffuse applies to
the overall appearance of whatever surface is visible.  A tiny mite can
be “fuzzy” if covered with hair, and just because to you it looks like a
dot does not mean it’s not fuzzy!  I’m sure, to the Hubble, Planet X is
diffuse.  To the amateur astronomer, the fact that it does not have an
intense pin-point of light as do stars makes it more difficult to find
and to view.  This is why it is being recommended that:

1. look at the Zeta coordinates given, and look AROUND that spot as well
2. use a scope that can MAGNIFY (zoom) as observatory scopes do
3. filter FOR the red, as this will differentiate Planet X from the surrounding sky
4. look for a DIFFUSE light over the surface, not a pinpoint of light (MAG 11 in equipment)

In Article <vnRK6.3690$n81.1992435@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> Did you see [Planet X], then, when it disappeared, got lost?
>> Can't find it?  Surely it reflected sunlight.
>
> Why are you using the past tense?  It still reflects sunlight, whatever
> is left of it, whenever it is not in the shadow of something else.
>
>> Too small you say?
>
> More important is the distance.  You do know about the inverse square
> law of light, don't you?
>
>> Your scope does not zoom, to magnify, so it would be too small?
>
> Irrelevant, given that magnification can't make something brighter.
>
>> Not enough light, from such a tiny object, to register on your
>> equipment?
>
> It can register all right, but not at a sufficient level to
> distinguish from the noise.  Ever listen to a radio station as
> you drive farther and farther from the transmitter?
>
>> I thought this didn't matter!
>
> You thought wrong.  Again.